In his latest book, Collision 2012, <\/i>Dan Balz, a Washington Post <\/i>writer, expresses his incredulity over \u201cthe inability\u201d of Mitt Romney\u2019s presidential campaign to \u201chumanize\u201d <\/i>its candidate.<\/p>\n
This is one reason why, in Balz\u2019s estimation, Romney lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama.<\/p>\n
Yet there are two other reasons that he supplies to account for Romney\u2019s defeat.\u00a0 The one pertains to the \u201ctechnically superior\u201d character of his rival\u2019s campaign. The other is in regard to Romney\u2019s \u201cambivalence\u201d concerning his bid for the presidency.<\/p>\n
The first thing that should be noted is that if Romney\u2019s consultants had difficulty in \u201chumanizing\u201d their man, it\u2019s because those at places like the Washington Post <\/i>were more determined to see to it that he was de<\/i>humanized.\u00a0 This, after all, is exactly what their <\/i>man, Obama, wanted.<\/p>\n
Second, as far as technical finesse goes, if there were differences between the campaigns, they were negligible: Obama was more successful in conveying his message because of the ubiquitous and overwhelming media bias that sought to dehumanize his opponent.<\/p>\n
As for Blaz\u2019s third contention, it is superfluous to note Romney\u2019s \u201cambivalence\u201d toward his political fate, for Romney is a Republican and Republicans, as a rule, can be counted upon to act as if they are ambivalent toward the political fate of their party.\u00a0 However, of the three reasons that Blaz submits for Romney\u2019s misfortunes, this is the only one that takes.<\/p>\n
It is not, as many \u201cconservative\u201d media personalities insist, that Romney is a \u201cRINO\u201d (Republican-In-Name-Only).\u00a0 It isn\u2019t that he is a \u201cmoderate.\u201d\u00a0 And it certainly isn\u2019t that he is \u201ctoo far to the right,\u201d as those in the Democrat-friendly press maintain.<\/p>\n
Though more difficult to accept, the truth is far less dramatic, and much more simple, than any of these fictions.<\/p>\n
And the truth is that Romney lost to Obama because he is just another typical Republican<\/i>.<\/p>\n
To see that this is so, we need only ask ourselves: Politically\u2014that is to say, substantively, <\/i>not stylistically\u2014<\/i>how is Romney any different from, say, John McCain and George W. Bush? \u00a0For that matter, with the exception of Ron Paul, how is Romney any different from any of his competitors in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012?<\/p>\n
The answer is obvious: Romney is not <\/i>at all significantly different from any of his colleagues.<\/p>\n
Not unlike the Bushes and McCains of the world, Romney generously pays lip service to the standard GOP slogan of \u201climited government\u201d and its ancillaries. And, not unlike the Bushes and McCains, he favors a robust, activist military to reinforce America\u2019s \u201cexceptionalism\u201d around the globe.<\/p>\n
In other words, Romney, like his fellow partisans past and present, appears at best incoherent\u2014Big Military, being Big Government, is radically incompatible with \u201climited government.\u201d<\/p>\n
At worst, he seems dishonest, talking one way out of one side of his mouth while talking an entirely different way out of the other.<\/p>\n
Yet there is more.<\/p>\n
We now know that the GOP has been hemorrhaging white <\/i>voters for the last two presidential election cycles.\u00a0 While Romney needed 46 percent<\/i> more of the Hispanic vote to win, had he garnered only three<\/i> or four<\/i> percent more of the white vote and he would\u2019ve won comfortably.<\/p>\n
Many of these same whites who are now cold toward the Republican Party weren\u2019t always so. Having experienced what they rightly take as one too many betrayals, they have either sat out the last couple of elections or they have cast protest votes.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, the disenchantment with the GOP that has overcome ever-growing numbers of the conservative and libertarian-minded is the mirror image of the disinterest of independents and others in it.\u00a0 For those on the right, Republicans\u2019 rhetoric is fine and good; it\u2019s their Big Government policies that are the problem.\u00a0 For those in the center and on the left, it is primarily Republicans\u2019 rhetoric that frightens them.<\/p>\n
Mitt Romney exemplified the contradictions of his party.\u00a0 Thus, their dilemma became his.<\/p>\n
This is why Romney lost the race for the White House of 2012.<\/i><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In his latest book, Collision 2012, Dan Balz, a Washington Post writer, expresses his incredulity over \u201cthe inability\u201d of Mitt Romney\u2019s presidential campaign to \u201chumanize\u201d its candidate. This is one reason why, in Balz\u2019s estimation, Romney lost the 2012 election to Barack Obama. Yet there are two other reasons that he supplies to account for…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n